[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 46 (Thursday, March 7, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9136-9138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5292]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571 and 572

[Docket No. 92-28; Notice 6]
RIN 2127-AG07


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Head Impact Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document grants four petitions to commence rulemaking to 
amend upper interior head protection requirements to accommodate 
vehicles equipped with a dynamic head protection device which is 
activated in a side impact (e.g., a side air bag). This document 
requests information on various issues NHTSA must evaluate before 
issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking for these petitions.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All comments must refer to the docket and notice number set 
forth above and be submitted (preferably in 10 copies) to the Docket 
Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 
Seventh Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590:
    For non-legal issues:
    Dr. William Fan, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-14, 
telephone (202) 366-4922, facsimile (202) 366-4329, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''.
    For legal issues:
    Mary Versailles, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, telephone 
(202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic mail 
``[email protected]''.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 18, 1995, NHTSA published a final 
rule amending Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 
to require passenger cars, trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger 
vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 
pounds to incorporate measures to prevent or reduce injury when a 
vehicle occupant's head strikes upper interior components during a 
crash. The covered components include pillars, side rails, headers, and 
the roof. The amendments add procedures and performance requirements 
for a new in-vehicle component test (60 FR 43031). The period for 
submittal of petitions for reconsideration closed September 19, 1995.
    NHTSA received nine petitions for reconsideration of the final 
rule. Four of those petitions (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, and 
Volvo) asked for a variety of changes to the final rule if a vehicle is 
equipped with a dynamic head protection countermeasure which is 
activated in a crash (i.e., a side air bag, hereafter referred to as 
dynamic systems). In addition, four manufacturers (BMW, Ford, Mercedes-
Benz, and Volvo) requested meetings with the agency to discuss the 
impact of the final rule on dynamic systems. The petitions requested a 
variety of changes to the rule, including:
     A complete exclusion of any vehicle equipped with a 
dynamic system,
     An exclusion of targets protected by a dynamic system,
     For targets protected by a dynamic system, a reduction of 
the free motion headform (FMH) impact speed from 15 miles per hour 
(mph) to 12 mph when tested without the dynamic system activated,
     The inclusion of a dynamic test in the standard, and
     Testing with the dynamic system activated.
    Because these issues are outside the scope of the rulemaking that 
led to the August 18 final rule, it is not a proper subject for a 
petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the agency is treating the 
Mercedes-Benz petition, and the related portions of the BMW, Volkswagen 
and Volvo petitions as petitions for rulemaking, and is granting those 
petitions. Before publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
agency wishes to conduct some evaluations. To assist the agency in 
conducting these evaluations, this notice requests comments on the 
issues identified above.

[[Page 9137]]

Performance Evaluation

    Currently, Standard No. 201 requires that a vehicle's instrument 
panel meet the Standard when impacted at a relative velocity of 15 
miles per hour, with one exception. The exception is for vehicles that 
meet the occupant protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, 
``Occupant Crash Protection,'' by means of an inflatable restraint. 
Those vehicles need only meet the performance requirement when impacted 
at a relative velocity of 12 miles per hour.
    The agency notes that while this exception appears to be similar to 
one of the changes requested by the petitions, there is an important 
distinction. The existing exception is premised upon the existence of a 
dynamic performance test that provides an objective evaluation of the 
protection provided by the inflatable restraint. That test provides 
assurance that the inflatable restraint provides protection that is a 
suitable substitute for the protection otherwise afforded by the 
Standard. However, the exception sought by the petitioners is not 
necessarily premised on the existence of such a test for evaluating the 
performance of dynamic systems. NHTSA believes that before it considers 
any changes in the requirements of the August 18 final rule, it should 
have a method of testing dynamic systems for a minimum level of 
performance. Since such a method does not now exist, one must be 
developed. Either there must be a single testing method appropriate for 
evaluating the performance of the wide range of dynamic systems under 
development, or there must be a variety of test methods that, together, 
are sufficient for testing all systems and ensuring that they provide 
equivalent protection.
    NHTSA is aware of two categories of dynamic systems that are under 
consideration by the manufacturers. The first category is dynamically 
deployed padding. The dynamically deployed padding would provide 
improved protection for head impacts with the upper interior components 
already covered by the final rule. However, the dynamically deployed 
padding is anticipated to provide protection in higher severity impacts 
than that provided by the static padding which would otherwise be 
utilized to meet the requirements of the final rule. The second 
category includes dynamically deployed air bags or other inflatable 
devices such as BMW's Inflatable Tubular Structure. This technology 
provides head protection for impacts with various vehicle upper 
interior components. It also potentially affords protection for side 
impacts with external objects such as trees and poles or the front high 
hooded areas of a colliding vehicle.
    Since the dynamic systems may have the potential to provide 
improved head protection beyond that provided by the final rule, the 
agency is considering rulemaking to allow them. However, as noted 
above, the agency believes that test procedures must be developed to 
evaluate the dynamic systems in order to assure that the protection 
afforded by the dynamic systems is a suitable substitute for that 
provided by the final rule.
    A number of test procedures have been suggested. These include:

Procedures for Dynamically Deployed Padding

    For targets protected by dynamically deployed padding, impact the 
targets with the FMH at 12 mph, prior to the deployment of the padding. 
The targets would be located using the existing procedures. Impact 
these same target locations again, this time at 20 mph, after 
deployment of the padding. The higher speed for testing the deployed 
padding is intended to assure that increased head protection is 
provided by the advanced technology. (For an explanation of the 20 mph 
test speed, see the questions below regarding benefits.) Conduct crash 
tests at 15-20 mph to ensure that sensors activate the deployment of 
the advanced padding under those conditions.

Procedures for Dynamically Deployed Air Bags and Other Inflatable 
Devices

    (1) For targets protected by an air bag or other inflatable device, 
conduct FMH impacts at 12 mph. The advanced systems are not deployed 
for these tests. All other targets are tested at 15 mph.
    (2) Conduct a side impact crash test of the vehicle into a 250 mm 
diameter rigid pole at 30 kph. The vertical centerline of the pole is 
aligned with the center of gravity of the dummy's head. The dummy's 
seat is positioned forward of the mid-seating location such that the 
dummy's head is sufficiently within the front window opening that the 
striking pole will not contact the B-pillar.
    (3) Conduct a side impact crash test at 50 kph using the ISO 10997 
moving deformable barrier (MDB) fitted with a rigid face whose top edge 
is not less than 1250 mm above the ground. The dummy's seat is 
positioned forward of the mid-seating location such that the dummy's 
head is sufficiently within the front window opening that the striking 
MDB can make direct head contact. The second and third test procedures 
for the ``dynamically deployed air bags and other inflatable devices'' 
were presented by the U.S. delegation to the ISO/TC 22/SC 10/WG 3 in 
its draft technical report, Document N100, ``Road Vehicles--Test 
Procedures of Evaluating Various Occupant Interactions with Deploying 
Side Impact Air Bags.''
    To assist the agency in developing possible ways of evaluating 
performance, the agency requests answers to the following questions:
    1. What test procedures could be used to measure the performance of 
a dynamic system?
    2. What performance criteria would assure that advanced systems, 
when deployed, provide protection equivalent to that provided by 
countermeasures that meet the requirements of the final rule?
    3. Are there other test methods appropriate for dynamic systems 
using full scale crash tests and an anthropomorphic test device?
    4. If the agency were to propose a lower impact speed for targets 
protected by a dynamic system, are there components of the dynamic 
system which are not protected by the system but which could not meet 
the upper interior requirements at the current impact speed (15 mph)?

Benefits

    The majority of dynamic systems known to NHTSA would offer occupant 
protection only in side impacts. The final rule was intended to provide 
head impact protection in frontal, side, and rollover crashes. Before 
deciding whether to propose amendments to accommodate vehicles with 
dynamic systems, NHTSA wishes to explore the nature and extent of any 
tradeoffs. To do this, it must compare the benefits provided by these 
dynamic systems with the benefits afforded by the final rule. Excluding 
targets or reducing the impact speed for targets would reduce the 
benefits for those targets in crashes which do not cause the dynamic 
system to deploy. Conversely, the dynamic systems may offer increased 
benefits when they do deploy. To assist the agency in evaluating the 
relative benefits of possible proposals, the agency requests answers to 
the following questions:
    5. What effect would reducing test speeds have on injuries in non-
deployment crashes?
    6. What is the effectiveness of each dynamic system in reducing 
fatalities and injuries? What percent reduction in the various injury 
criteria (e.g., HIC) would result if these technologies were installed? 
Would this reduction vary by delta-V? If so, specify the relationship

[[Page 9138]]

between delta-V and injury criteria reduction for the specific system.
    7. Could the dynamic systems cause increases in neck injuries? If 
so, what data are available to quantify this impact? What criteria can 
be used to determine whether lateral neck motion is increasing or 
causing injury?
    8. Some advanced technologies appear to offer potential reductions 
in the likelihood of ejection. What would the effectiveness of dynamic 
systems be in reducing ejection in side or other impact modes or in a 
subsequent collision?
    9. The dynamic systems known to NHTSA will deploy and protect the 
near-side occupant in a side impact. Will the dynamic system for the 
far-side occupant deploy in a side impact or in rollovers to protect 
against possible rebound effects or subsequent collision?
    10. Do MY 1996 vehicles meet 12 mph test requirements? Do any MY 
1996 vehicles meet 15 mph test requirements?
    11. Should an impact speed higher than 15 mph be used in FMH 
testing of the system in order to compensate for the loss in benefits 
because the system does not deploy in rollover and frontal crashes? If 
so, is 20 mph an appropriate impact speed?
    12. Are there existing accident data analyses concerning head 
injuries as a function of crash modes and target components?

Miscellaneous Questions

    To allow NHTSA to become better acquainted with the dynamic systems 
under development, the agency requests answers to the following 
questions:
    13. Are dynamic systems compatible with the B-pillar mounted 
shoulder anchorage point? Are integrated restraint seats (IRS), which 
have shoulder belt anchorages attached to the upper backseat, more 
compatible with the dynamic systems?
    14. How much would the dynamic systems add to the price and weight 
of the vehicle?
    15. What are the performance criteria for the sensor system 
designs? What is the time interval necessary for full deployment of the 
dynamic system?
    16. If changes were made to the August 18 final rule, what is the 
anticipated time frame for introduction of dynamic systems? Are any 
dynamic systems being introduced prior to the requirements of the 
August 18 final rule?
    17. Will the systems be introduced as optional or standard 
equipment?

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was reviewed under E.O. 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Further, this action has been 
determined to be ``significant'' under the Department of 
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures because of 
anticipated public interest. Any anticipated rulemaking resulting from 
this notice would provide manufacturers with an alternative to the 
requirements in the August 18 final rule. A decision by a manufacturer 
to avail itself of the alternative would entail use of technology 
(i.e., dynamic systems) that may well be more costly than the padding 
which could be used to comply with the final rule. The agency solicits 
information from the manufacturers concerning those cost of those 
dynamic systems.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has analyzed this notice in accordance with the principles 
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that it does 
not have significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment.

Submission of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments. It is requested 
but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CAR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available 
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and 
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the 
closing date will also be considered. Comments will be available for 
inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant 
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing 
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine 
the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)

    Issued on March 1, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-5292 Filed 3-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P